US protesters urge Obama to act on global warming

February 17, 2013

Barack Obama speaks during a visit to the Copper Mountain Solar Project last March. Thousands of protesters gathered in Washington Sunday for a rally to press President Barack Obama to take concrete measures to help fight global warming.

Thousands of protesters gathered in Washington Sunday for a rally to press President Barack Obama to take concrete measures to help fight global warming.

The protesters want Obama to reject the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would bring oil from Canada's tar sands to Texas and order the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set carbon standards for power plants, among other things.

The event has been organized by scores of local and national environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, under an umbrella group named Forward on Climate.

"Your legacy as 44th president of the United States rests firmly on your leadership on climate disruption," protest organizers say on their website.

"Only the president has the power to lead an effort on the scale and with the urgency we need to phase out fossil fuels and lead America, and the world in a clean energy revolution."

Organizers claim the event will be the largest climate rally in US history, and includes protesters who have arrived aboard buses from 28 states.

The crowd was to rally at the National Mall at noon, then march to the White House.

The president mentioned climate change during his inauguration speech in January, and in Tuesday's State of the Union he vowed to take action "for the sake of our children and our future" if Congress fails to do so.

"I will direct my cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy," Obama said in his speech.

Celebrities who have signed a petition supporting the protesters include Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, Morgan Freeman, Robert Kennedy Jr and Yoko Ono.

The rally comes after the United States last year endured record high temperatures and lengthy droughts, as well as superstorm Sandy, which devastated the New York-New Jersey coastline.

To demand action against the $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline protesters said they will form a "a human pipeline"—a chain of people—between the National Mall and the White House.

Soon after taking office in 2009 Obama presented an ambitious measure aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions—the United States is the world's second largest CO2 emitter after China. But the bill ran into stiff resistance from the Republican opposition.

US President Barack Obama has hinted he will make another push to fight climate change after cruising to a new term, but his room for maneuver will be limited even with a new focus after megastorm Sandy.

Recommended for you

Five million years ago, the Colorado River met the Gulf of California near the present-day desert town of Blythe, California. The evidence, say University of Oregon geologists, is in the sedimentary rocks exposed at the edges ...

Pressure, temperature and fluid composition play an important role in the amount of metals and other chemicals found in wastewaters from hydraulically fractured gas reservoirs, according to Penn State researchers.

Pioneering work being carried out in a cave in New Mexico by researchers at McMaster University and The University of Akron, Ohio, is changing the understanding of how antibiotic resistance may have emerged and how doctors ...

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers with the European Commission's Joint Research Centre and Google Switzerland has combined historical data with modern mapping engines to produce high-resolution maps of the world's surface ...

The ice sheet covering Greenland is four times bigger than California—and holds enough water to raise global sea-level more than twenty feet if most of it were to melt. Today, sea levels are rising and the melting of Greenland ...

Technical question - why on earth rallies of greens are considered a scientific news?

Firstly, they are nothing more or nothing less as one of plenty political pressure groups and lobbies. (nothing inherently wrong in that but that does not sound specially scientific) And don't get the reason why other political groups don't get special coverage.

Actually, quite many ecologist groups have got anti-science stances when they boost paranoia against GMO or nuclear power. (Maybe here should be a promotion also of other anti-scientific ideas? What about cold fusion, creationism and homoeopathy? ;) )

Kennedy clan at the protest. This same criminal family protesting Cape Wind wind turbines because they infringe on the royal family's Hyannis view, not because they'll raise Cape electric rates by a third.

This is not to say that the climate doesn't change. It was warmer 1000 years ago, it was colder 200 years ago and much colder 700 years ago.

You think that climate scientists haven't studied Earths climate history, the cycles are well understood, that IS the climate, people are talking about climate CHANGE. Also, you regard a % of your money to be more valuable than your health. Priorities man.

The Reduction in take home pay - and the stagnation of middle class wages over the last 30 years - is of course a direct result of the same disastrous Republican borrow and spend economic treason that has bankrupted America.

The majority of Americans realize this, and despite Republican efforts to steal presidential elections through vote suppression, intimidation and gerrymandering, the American people still re-elected Obama knowing full well that it is Obama's economic policies that have kept America out of a decades long grand depression.

ScooTard and his retarded Tea-Publicans demand an immediate return to the depression era.

This is not to say that the climate doesn't change. It was warmer 1000 years ago, it was colder 200 years ago and much colder 700 years ago.

You think that climate scientists haven't studied Earths climate history, the cycles are well understood, that IS the climate, people are talking about climate CHANGE. Also, you regard a % of your money to be more valuable than your health. Priorities man.

Hard to say what they study. I know that 1000 years ago there were dairy farms in Greenland, vineyards in Scotland, and Nova Scotia and that these harbingers of Warm Weather were extant for hundreds of years. I also know it is too cold today to support those activities.

So to get back to 1000 AD normal, not only does it have to be warmer than today, it has to stay warmer for several hundred years.

Because as scientists we know that the greens are largely supported by the science we conduct.

The greens that we have in Europe actually are terribly anti-science when it comes to GMO or nuclear energy. They pay lip service towards science when it supports their ideology, and ignore it when it's against their agenda. (which is rather typical among political groups, regardless of exact ideology)

You should ask yourself why virtually all scientists are Liberal.

Maybe I should rather ask you why you so confidently made such a bold claim? Maybe because you didn't bother to look anywhere outside the US? Or maybe you don't read e.g. economic papers? Or maybe more nuanced views on academia which don't even fit well to right/left axis are too complicated for you? (In the last case I can't blame you, your anti-intellectual right wing in the US also makes the same error)

Just because some research is not thought to be beneficial for putting into widespread use someone is automatically 'anti science'? What kind of moron-grade logic are such blanket statements?

I can be against research into biological warfare agents and for research into better solar cells. Does that make me automatically "anti-science" or "pro-science"?

You should ask yourself why virtually all scientists are Liberal.

Because they do what liberals do: Decide on a case by case basis instead of using dogma. Science and dogma are complete opposites.To be a scintist you have to have an open mind (that is why almost no scientists are religious)

Maybe because you didn't bother to look anywhere outside the US?

You may find that compared to the US EVERYBODY is liberal. The LIBERALS in the US are stone crazy fundamentalist conservatives compared to everybody else.

Just because some research is not thought to be beneficial for putting into widespread use someone is automatically 'anti science'? What kind of moron-grade logic are such blanket statements?

Simple case - German nuclear power plants. They were recently shut down because greens consider them as evil. That was quite expensive idea to INCREASE our European carbon dioxide emission.

What about GMO? Would such technology according to contemporary research level seem dangerous? Would it application increase yields from hectare, reduce need for arable land and allow for reforestation? So what are stances of so called greens?

To be a scintist you have to have an open mind (that is why almost no scientists are religious)

Sounds odd, I'd expect that scientist would be merely slightly more secular on average. May you base your claim some pool?

Czcibor: I think conventional nuclear reactors have demonstrated how dangerous they are, along with burning fossil fuels. I could go on about the drawbacks of other technologies. The sad face of it is that hardly anyone will consider what is the best energy source as being a legitimate alternative. What I mean by that is that LFTR Nuclear Reactors have the potential to make nuclear a safe alternative energy that could provide us with energy potential for 1000 years. It's not abundant enough for all countries but it is abundant enough for the major polluting countries to be pollution free. My "We the People" Petition to study it's efficacy is in great need of votes: http://rawcell.com. NOTE: I have even proposed a way to pay for it without increasing our long term debt.

Assuming that you try to present here more worldwide approach, then the only thing weird in naming ideologies in the US is the fact that left wing is called liberals. Practically everywhere else when you call someone a liberal, you mean classical liberalism which include both high level of freedom of individual and free market. (an ideology that according to US standards would be referred as a kind of soft line libertarianism)

Don't worry guys, with or without human society, the evolution show will go on. How can we be so short-sighted and stubbornly refuse to stick together and solve the problems, which result from our life style. A mature civilization can sustain itself only if it succeeds in aligning the goals of individuals with the goals of society, which is effectively a very tough omniscale exercise. But it is a conditio sine qua non for perennity.

The only effective measure is the adoption of cold fusion findings. How easy it would be for US government simply to buy few E-Cat units and to demonstrate publicly, Mr. Rossi is fraud or genius? Simply during some Oprah Winfrey TV show before eyes of millions of people. It's the simplest thing on the world, which could be done with the whole cold fusion stuff once and for ever.

But the hypocritical guys at both sides of global warming controversy will NEVER do it from apparent reason. And those who don't want to see this obvious fact will never admit it from the same reason.